Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271461359
Conference Paper in Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering May 2014
DOI: 10.1117/12.2053117
CITATION READS
1 672
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ram M. Narayanan on 27 December 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Design Considerations for Quantum Radar Implementation
Matthew J. Brandsemaa , Ram M. Narayanana , and Marco Lanzagortab
a Dept. of Electrical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
16802
b Naval Research Laboratory, Code 5543, Washington, DC 20375
ABSTRACT
Quantum radar serves to drastically improve the resolution of current radar technology using quantum phenom-
ena. This paper will first review some of the proposed ideas and engineering designs behind both entanglement
radar and coherent state radar design schemes. Entanglement radar is based on first entangling two photons,
then sending one of the entangled photons out towards the target, and keeping the other one at home. A corre-
lation between the two photons is analyzed to obtain information. Coherent state quantum radar relies on using
coherent state photons and a quantum detection scheme in order to beat the diffraction limit. Based on the
above, a proposed design concept to implement of a coherent state quantum radar is presented for simultaneously
determining target range and azimuth/elevation angles.
Keywords: Quantum Radar, Entanglement, Coherent States
1. INTRODUCTION
Quantum radar is a new paradigm which exploits quantum phenomena to enhance the resolution of a radar
system in which it becomes more sensitive than its classical counterpart. There are two emerging methods to
accomplish this, and each method has its own unique characteristics.
The first technique is to utilize the concept of quantum entanglement between two photons. This method
provides the best resolution1, but seems to be the most difficult to implement and comes with some drawbacks.
The second approach is to use coherent state photons. This method does not achieve as good of a resolution
as that of the quantum entanglement radar1, but it seems to be much easier to implement. Furthermore, a lot
of the ground work and fundamental proof of concepts seem to have already been done.
At the present time, there are two major methods for ascertaining information in quantum radar devices. The
first method is quantum interferometry, where the phases of the outgoing and incoming photons are measured,
and the difference in phase gives information about the targets location2. This is identical to classical radar
interferometry. The second method for obtaining information is by quantum illumination. This method is
essentially an intensity measurement. In order to perform this type of measurement, one must be able to count
the incoming photons. This task is in general, much more difficult to do than measuring the phase2. Both of
these methods, as well as detailed overview of quantum radar theory can be found in Ref. [2].
Radar Sensor Technology XVIII, edited by Kenneth I. Ranney, Armin Doerry, Proc. of SPIE
Vol. 9077, 90770T 2014 SPIE CCC code: 0277-786X/14/$18 doi: 10.1117/12.2053117
hi = W (0, 0). (1)
2
The fundamental experimental setup for taking advantage of this fact will now be explained, borrowing
heavily from the a paper on quantum homodyne detection3.
Figure 1 shows the experimental setup for a quantum homodyne parity measurement as presented in Ref.
[3]. It is essentially an interferometer.
A coherent state is the output of a coherent electromagnetic source which is denoted as |i. We define to
be,
Figure 1. Setup of the interferometer used in the parity measurement experiment. CRS = Coherent Radar Source, BS
= Beam splitter, M = Mirror, QHD = Quantum Homodyne detector, = Unknown phase to be detected = kl (k is the
wave number and l is the path length difference between the two arms of the interferometer that lie between the two
beam splitters). Notice how the QHD uses a CRS as a local oscillator. Adapted from Ref. [3]
= nei , (2)
which represents a complex phasor, encoding information in the amplitude n and phase of the field. The
quantity ||2 = n is the average number of photons in the field that is proportional to the return intensity of the
signal. We are only interested in the phase difference accumulated upon propagation, so we set = 0 to simplify
the expression to obtain
= n. (3)
Since this is a quantum system, n undergoes quantum fluctuations n upon measurement that can only be
neglected in the classical limit where these fluctuations are negligible compared to the measured value.
A coherent state input is mixed with vacuum via a 50/50 beam splitter. At the first beam splitter, we write
the resultant state as,
in in
|iA |0iB , (4)
where |0i represents quantum vacuum and represents a coherent state. After traversing the interferometer,
the output state becomes,
out out
| cos i | sin i , (5)
2 A 2 B
where = e( 2 ) , which is the attenuated coherent state, is the attenuation coefficient, and R is the range.
R
We assume that the lower path of the interferometer is attenuation free. The goal is to implement a parity
measurement at output port B. The way to do this is to obtain information about the average photon number
n coming in from the signal.
The expectation value of parity is proportional to the Wigner function of the output state, evaluated at the
origin in phase space. In other words,
hi = hein i = W (0, 0), (6)
2
where n = b b is the number operator and b is the mode operator for Bout . The Wigner function for a coherent
state is
2 2
h | | i = e2| | = e2n sin ( 2 ) (9)
Therefore in order to obtain a parity measurement, one only needs to find the average photon number.
When comparing
the resulting curve with the classical Rayleigh diffraction limit, we find that the peaks are
a factor of 2 n narrower, meaning, we achieve a resolution that beats the classical radar techniques.
One approach into obtaining the average photon number is to simply measure the output intensity n directly
and plug this result into (9). However this is not advisable for several reasons. The low return photon numbers
make it difficult to obtain an accurate measurement since the return photons will be well below the thermal noise
floor. In addition, there will also be quantum fluctuations n as well as classical fluctuations due to atmospheric
conditions and so on. One must perform intensity differencing between the output modes Aout and Bout , to
cancel out any noise of the classical fluctuations.
The best way to obtain the average photon number is to perform a procedure called Quantum Homodyne
Detection. This method is extremely similar to its counterpart in classical radar theory, except instead of
mixing classical electromagnetic waves, one is mixing coherent states together via a 50/50 beam splitter. More
information can be found in Ref. [3], but a brief outline is presented here.
The intensity of the local oscillator signal is much greater than the intensity of the incoming signal of photons;
thus, this method provides amplification to pull the signal photons out of the thermal noise floor. The two outputs
of the mixing are then guided to two detectors where the intensity between them is differenced. The intensity
difference is a function of the unknown range phase of the target.
The intensity difference between the two detectors, can be shown to be
p
Y (LO , ) = 2 n nLO sin(LO ). (11)
Putting these equations together (after setting the phase of the local oscillator to 90 degrees), along with (9)
gives us the following:
Y 2 ( )
2 2
S() = hi = e 2nLO
= en sin ()/2
(12)
YA (/2, ) = nLO n sin . (13)
We can then plug this into (12) and expand in a Taylor series expansion since 0 by the tunable phase
shifter. This yields
2 2
SA () = en sin ()/2
en /2
. (14)
The output signals of the two ports are then averaged to give the best estimate of the range phase.
Homodyne detection can also be used to find super-sensitive angle information as well as range. This is
discussed further in Ref. [3]. While it is unclear if homodyne has been experimentally proven for angular
information, it has been proven for range information. Meaning that the fundamental working principles of a
coherent state radar have already been done, the next step is to put everything together into a working device.
pt.Antenna
Idler Beam
Photodetector Splitter
Array C Array
Receiver
Figure 2. Block diagram of a proposed entanglement radar design presented in Ref. [6]. The photon source is a spontaneous
parametric down conversion (SPDC). The signal photon travels out the antenna and the idler photon gets sent into the
receiver, where it is held until the arrival of the return signal. The two photons are then sent into the coincidence estimator
and information is retrieved from the received data. Adapted from Ref. [6].
Photodetector Array
IRange Detector
Velocity Detector
Image Detector
Figure 3. Array detector for obtaining information about the targets parameters. The echo signal is split into multiple
different signals via a beam splitter. From here, each split signal can go into a different measurement device to ascertain
data. Adapted from Ref. [6].
associated with it. This phase can be used to ascertain the angle in which the wave came from. The signals
from the two cavities undergo intensity differencing in the same manner as discussed previously. The phase
difference between the two signals is proportional to the difference in intensity. From this phase difference, the
angle information can be obtained.
In order to implement both the angle and range measurements, both schemes described above must be
combined into one unit. Figure 5 shows the setup for such a design. Two resonant cavities are set up along one
axis to obtain azimuth information, while two other sets of resonant cavities are set up on the perpendicular axis
to obtain elevation information. This arrangement provides angular localization of the target in three dimensional
space. In the middle of these two sets of cavities is the receiver for obtaining range information. The middle
receiver connects to a system shown in Figure 1, and the two sets of cavities connects to a system shown in
Figure 4. A similar scheme was successfully demonstrated using correlation processing of a noise radar system
using two separated receive antennas7.
Range Receiver
0/ Elevation Detection
Cavities
aua u m
Phase
Detector
Computer
Qua tum
\_I
Ran e
Pete tor
Figure 5. Block diagram of the proposed coherent state radar. There are two sets of resonant cavities. One set is used to
measure the azimuth angle, while the other set is used to measure the elevation angle. The receiver in the middle is used
to ascertain range information. Signal from each set of resonant cavities is sent to a quantum angle detector, while the
middle receiver signal is sent to a quantum range detector. These detectors perform quantum homodyne detection and
send information to a computer for processing.
Information obtained from each set of receivers / cavities will be fed into a computer. The computer will
5. CONCLUSIONS
Quantum radar provides a way to dramatically enhance the resolution in comparison to its classical radar
counterpart. In the case of entanglement radar, also has the ability to detect stealth aircrafts and weaponry2.
Both types of quantum radar, entanglement and coherent state, have their pros and cons. Entanglement radar
seems to provide much better resolution than coherent state radar, yet is much harder to implement physically
due to the fragility of the entanglement and other technological issues3. Coherent state radar is much easier to
implement, and has been done in special cases already, but does not have as much resolution as its entanglement
counterpart.
All in all, coherent state radar seems to be the best approach to go in terms of an engineering perspective.
Entanglement radar is still a bit out of reach due to many problems. One major problem is the fact that a reliable
and stable single entangled photon transmitter in the microwave regime has yet to be created. Ref. [8] discusses
a proposed method to create entangled microwave photon pairs using intraband transitions in quantum dots. All
the models so far that have been proposed have had a photon source come from spontaneous parametric down
conversion (SPDC) methods. The problem with this is that SPDC emits photons in the visible or near visible
regime, and therefore would not be practical for microwave radar applications. However, an optical radar may
be implemented and tested in the near future.
REFERENCES
1. Shapiro J.H., and Lloyd S., Quantum illumination versus coherent-state target detection, New Journal of
Physics, 11(6): 063045, (Jun. 2009).
2. Lanzagorta, M., Quantum Radar. [San Rafael, Calif.]: Morgan & Claypool (2012).
3. Jiang K., Lee H., Gerry C.C., and Dowling J.P., Super-resolving quantum radar: Coherent-state sources
with homodyne detection suffice to beat the diffraction limit, Journal of Applied Physics, 114(19): 193102,
(Nov. 2013).
4. Lanzagorta, M., Amplification of radar and lidar signatures using quantum sensors, [Proceedings of the
SPIE Conference Active and Passive Signatures IV ], Baltimore, MD, 87340C (2013)
5. Glauber R.J., Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field, Physical Review, 131(6): 2766-2788,
(Sep. 1963).
6. Bassyouni A., A new radar system based on entangled photonic beam, in [Proceedings of the IASTED
International Conference on Antennas, Radar and Wave Propagation (ARP 2010)], Cambridge, MA, 109-
115, (Nov. 2010).
7. Narayanan, R.M., Mueller, R.D., and Palmer, R.D., Random noise radar interferometry, in [Proceedings of
the SPIE Conference on Radar Processing, Technology, and Applications], Denver, CO, 75-82 (Aug. 1996).
8. Emary, C., Trauzettel, B., and Beenakker, C.W.J., Emission of polarization-entangled microwave photons
from a pair of quantum dots, Physical Review Letters, 95(12): 127401 (16 Sep. 2005).
DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/
stats on 03/09/2015 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms